5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is currently serving prison sentences in Varna prison.
6.  According to the indictment filed against the applicant in December 2003, in the evening of 23 September 2002 it was alleged that he had held a party with his girlfriend and four other individuals. He drank a lot and became jealous. Later, while he and his girlfriend were in another room, witnesses heard a shot. They went to the room and saw the victim lying in a pool of blood. It was alleged that the applicant was holding a pistol and told them he had shot her. Then he got into the car of an acquaintance of his, together with two of the witnesses, threatened the driver with the pistol and forced him to drive him out of town. After some time he asked the driver to stop and then ran away. According to the indictment, the witnesses informed the police.
7.  The applicant had been sought by the police since 29 July 2002 in connection with previous criminal proceedings.
8.  After the murder of 23 September 2002, the applicant was not found at his permanent address. Following inquiries by an investigator at the Haskovo regional investigation service, it became clear that he was not in prison and had not left the country. On 14 November 2002 the investigator ordered the police to find and bring the applicant before him. There is no information whether the police took any measures in pursuance of the order.
9.  On 24 September 2002 a preliminary investigation was opened on suspicion that the applicant had intentionally shot dead his girlfriend, after which he had forced a witness to drive him away and had gone into hiding.
10.  On 20 November 2003 the investigator established that the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown, appointed a lawyer to represent him and charged him in absentia with intentional murder and coercion. The results of the preliminary investigation were presented to the applicant’s officially appointed lawyer, who did not make any objections or requests for additional evidence to be obtained.
11.  On an unspecified date in December 2003 the Haskovo regional prosecutor’s office filed an indictment against the applicant with the Haskovo Regional Court.
12.  The Regional Court tried to summon the applicant at his permanent address. The summons was returned undelivered with information from the applicant’s father to the effect that the applicant had left the address two years ago. After an inquiry, it was again established that the applicant was not in prison and had not left the country. Therefore, the Regional Court assigned counsel to represent the applicant during the trial.
13.  In a judgment of 7 July 2004 the Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged, sentenced him to sixteen years’ imprisonment and allowed a civil claim brought by the victim’s mother in the amount of 25,000 levs (BGN) (12,783 euros: EUR). The judgment was based on witness testimonies, expert reports and an inspection of the crime scene. The applicant’s court-appointed lawyer did not appeal against the judgment and it became final.
14.  On 11 April 2006 the applicant was arrested and taken to Varna prison to start serving a previously imposed sentence. At that time he had already received prison sentences in at least four sets of criminal proceedings, with terms of imprisonment varying from one to ten years. According to a letter from the prison authorities, on 11 November 2008 the Sofia District Court, applying Articles 25 and 27 of the Criminal Code, cumulated the sentences given in three sets of criminal proceedings, including the proceedings in absentia. It joined in its entirety the sixteen -year sentence imposed in absentia to the outstanding parts of the other sentences and thus determined an aggregate punishment of twenty years, three months and two days’ imprisonment, starting from 11 November 2008. Four years were to be deducted from this period by virtue of the Amnesty Act, which, according to the prison authorities, was applicable in respect of an unspecified previous offence committed by the applicant.
15.  On 10 October 2006 the applicant submitted a request for a reopening of the criminal proceedings held in absentia. He stated that he had learned about the criminal proceedings against him on 11 April 2006, when he had been arrested and sent to prison. He further maintained that his right to defence had been violated because no psychiatrist had been appointed to assess his mental state at the time of the incident and no fingerprint sample had been taken from him. He also stated that he had been denied the right to the effective assistance of counsel, because the lawyer assigned to him had not taken any steps in his defence and had not appealed against the judgment of 7 July 2004.
16.  In a judgment of 1 March 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request. The court held that under Article 423 of the 2006 Code of Criminal Procedure a reopening was only possible where the convicted person had been unaware of the criminal proceedings against him for reasons beyond his control. It noted, however, that the applicant had left the scene of the crime and had failed to inform the authorities of his current address. Therefore the fact that he had not been aware of the criminal proceedings against him was a consequence of his own conduct. The court concluded that by fleeing and failing to inform the authorities of his whereabouts the applicant had given up his procedural rights of his own free will. As to the applicant’s court-appointed lawyer, the court found that he had not breached his duties, his failure to appeal against the judgment of 7 July 2004 having been based on a careful assessment of its fairness and lawfulness.